Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 797 (RAJ)

Nimb Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-08

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2022
JUDGMENT Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14 (a) (2) SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act on behalf of the appellant, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.634/2021, Police Station Balotra, District Barmer, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D and 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) (b) (i) and 3 (2) (va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act against the order dated 29.01.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act Cases, Balotra, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. In compliance of Court's earlier order dated 18.02.2022, Investigating Officer, Mr. Dhanphool Meena appears before the Court along with learned Public Prosecutor and stated that since victim has not supported the story of prosecution during the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC could not be proved against the accused-appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the incident took place in January 2021 and the FIR has been filed in December 2021; victim 'M' is a major lady; as per FIR, it is a matter of friendship and consent between the appellant and the victim; there is no direct allegation of rape against the appellant; in fact, it is a matter of blackmailing; allegation of blackmailing the victim by the appellant is totally false; and the trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the appellants. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has fervently and vehemently opposed the appeal and stated that money has been transferred from the bank account of Mahendra (friend of victim's brother) to the bank account of uncle of the accused-appellant. 6. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has fervently and vehemently opposed the appeal and stated that money has been transferred from the bank account of Mahendra (friend of victim's brother) to the bank account of uncle of the accused-appellant. 6. Thus, having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, and particularly looking to the photographs of the accused-appellant with the victim and the fact that victim does not support the allegation of rape during the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; the money has not been directly transferred to the bank account of the accused-appellant; and trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.01.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act Cases, Balotra, is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant - Nimb Singh S/o Devi Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.634/2021, Police Station Balotra, District Barmer, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.